That adds holiness to the lawsuit, doncha know. The SovCits must have adopted it.

Irion is an idiot:

She responded, moran.

You are correct; she responded to the Tennessee suit.

Then I will amend my observation: Irion failed to prove that she was served with the Arizona suit.

You are correct; she responded to the Tennessee suit.

Then I will amend my observation: Irion failed to prove that she was served with the Arizona suit.

bob - How could you?

Oh, puhleeeze, bob. She obviously knew about the TN suit. Therefore, according to birferlaw 101, she should know about the AZ suit, served or not.

She might have known about it, but, per the TN MTD she hadn't been served with the TN action as at 1st March.

She can oppose the Arizona motion (if she learns about it) or seek to vacate any default by making the argument that had she known about the purported service (and query whether it was effective), she would have moved to dismiss in Arizona. After all, she did move to dismiss in Tennessee.

I think Irion is playing a dangerous game. I hope it explodes in his face.

03/26/2012 20 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 16 Order, Set Deadlines,, by Plaintiff Liberty Legal Foundation. (Irion, Van) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

“Service by Mail; Return. When the whereabouts of a party outside the state is known, service may be made by depositing the summons and a copy of the pleadings being served in the post office, postage prepaid, to be sent to the person to be served by any form of mail requiring a signed and returned receipt

The United States Postal Service track and confirm system confirms that such papers were in fact received by Defendant Debbie Wasserman Schultz as evidenced by the receipt, a copy of which shall be attached to this declaration

I can't seem to find the folder for the AZ case at Jack's. Has any response been lodged by any of the Defendants?

As mentioned in my previous post, The blurry USP.com attached by VennDiagram to his "proof of service" seems to indicate that a notice was left (no authorized recipient available) on Jan 29 and "delivered" on Jan 30, but no indication that it was signed for.

... not to an individual but to a corporation is not sufficient to effectuate service on a corporation under either the federal or Arizona rules.

Plaintiff also states there were two attempts to serve the registered agent for the National Democratic Party of the USA as registered with the Tennessee Secretary of Stateand that both attempts were refused. No detail is provided with respect to these attempts atservice but the Court infers that both were also registered mail. The Court finds that service has not been properly made upon Defendant National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. Inorder to properly serve this corporation, the Court requires that Plaintiff deliver a copy of thesummons and complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service of process. Service must be made by aperson qualified to serve a summons and complaint under Rule 4(c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87113788/AZ-2012-03-28-LLF-ORDER-Denying-Motion-for-Default-Against-Schultz

Bastid's lucky to get off with just a denial.

Unfortunately America’s courts are corrupt. In our Arizona lawsuit the defendants were served, but failed to show up in court. When LLF filed motions for default judgment, Judge Susan Bolton acted more like a defense attorney than a Judge. She denied one motion for default judgment by interpreting a procedural rule in a way that it has apparently never before been interpreted. She denied the other motion for default by refusing to accept a confirmation of delivery from the U.S. Postal Service and noting that a return receipt was missing. The return receipt was somehow “lost” by the postal service. What’s disturbing about these rulings is the fact that most courts routinely grant default judgments when defendants don’t show up. If a defendant later shows up and proves that they were not properly served the court can easily vacate the judgment and pick up the case where it left off. Issuing a default judgment forces a defendant that is avoiding the litigation to show up or accept the judgment. It is interesting that the Arizona court instead decided to assert defenses that the absent defendant didn't offer on its own behalf. LLF has now served the defendants, again, and expect responses in our Arizona case later this month.

In Tennessee we filed a motion for an injunction only to have our case removed from state court to federal court the evening before our injunction hearing. You see, about 30 years ago the Federal government quietly took away a little more of the states’ sovereignty by changing the rules related to cases being "removed” from state courts. This rule change gave any defense attorney unfettered authority to take any case away from any state court without asking permission from any judge simply by notifying both courts. The defendants in our Tennessee case waited until the evening before our injunction hearing to notify the courts and LLF that the hearing wouldn’t be taking place. Neat trick, huh? Of course they waited until we had traveled over 400 miles to attend the hearing before informing us of their plans.

LLF has filed a motion in Tennessee Federal Court to have our case returned back to the state court. We’re still waiting for a ruling from the Federal court. Unfortunately the Federal court may not rule for months. Another rule change from just five years ago leaves no effective method to force any Federal court to rule on a pending motion. So, Federal courts can effectively sit on motions, and entire cases, until they are moot. We can only hope and pray that the Tennessee Federal Court will actually rule on our motion in time to make a difference.